I don't know the relevant California codes and statutes on sexual harassment in the workplace. I assumed that a documented trail of poor performance would outweigh a last minute sexual harassment claim. Wouldn't be surprised if that was just a California law.

Otherwise I thought this was pretty obvious stuff.

26/28

/slapping my assistant on the ass/hey, if she didn't like it she wouldn't wear those sexy skirts, ammirite?

Some of those questions are ridiculously vague. And, I'm obviously not down with the business lingo, so I went with the literal translation for "quid pro quo" since I've never used it to mean anything but that. Obviously, I'm not in the business or corporate world, so I don't know about all of those win-win positive effect leverage producing deliverable paradigms that are going around. ;)

I got the first question wrong because I didn't realize that I was meant to be their boss in the situation rather than they be my managers. And yeah, I don't have a clue about California law.

20/28. I guess I shouldn't be put in charge of any corporate work environments in California. :-/

Bill_Wick's_Friend:I don't know the relevant California codes and statutes on sexual harassment in the workplace. I assumed that a documented trail of poor performance would outweigh a last minute sexual harassment claim. Wouldn't be surprised if that was just a California law.

Otherwise I thought this was pretty obvious stuff.

26/28

/slapping my assistant on the ass/hey, if she didn't like it she wouldn't wear those sexy skirts, ammirite?

The Union Trib in San Diego is infamous for yellow journalism. Don't treat anything they report as factually accurate.

mamoru:And, I'm obviously not down with the business lingo, so I went with the literal translation for "quid pro quo" since I've never used it to mean anything but that

On that one I paused a moment and wondered "do they mean 'what does it mean' or 'what does it mean to us in our specific sexual harassment sector'". I opted for the latter and got it right.

Stupid question, though. It's like asking "what does e plurubus unum" mean and rejecting the answer "out of many, one" in favour of "several small colonies can join together to build a union of united states in order to form a new nation". Yeah, that's the connotation that the phrase has taken on over the last 225 years, but that's not what it "means".

If you weren't the lowest of low level employees you'd know that's not the case. The first time you hear an employee complain of harassment you'll wish you'd known that your shift manager likes to get touchy with his female co-workers.

26/28. Also got the California laws one wrong (I'm not Californian), as well as a question only 13% of people got right. I put "maybe" for the person who laughed at the inappropriate jokes being able to file a suit, when the answer was "no." I stand by my answer, though. She could file a suit, but it's likely she'd lose.

If you weren't the lowest of low level employees you'd know that's not the case. The first time you hear an employee complain of harassment you'll wish you'd known that your shift manager likes to get touchy with his female co-workers.

To be fair, it's possible this dude is self-employed. But yeah, if you're supervising, you'd better be on this shiat.

RodneyToady:26/28. Also got the California laws one wrong (I'm not Californian), as well as a question only 13% of people got right. I put "maybe" for the person who laughed at the inappropriate jokes being able to file a suit, when the answer was "no." I stand by my answer, though. She could file a suit, but it's likely she'd lose.

Yeah, it totally depends. If at first they were just inappropriate jokes in general, and then were suddenly directed at her, she might have a good case.

Number 18 is miswritten and if it was in a professional product would make any results derived from the quiz invalid.

Number 19 fark if I know.

Number 23 most companies have their own policy on a CYA basis.

My mom's an HR director and during the 90's this sort of stuff was dinner table conversation. HR people can't gossip at work but the confidentiality goes out the window when there's no route back to those concerned. Made things awkward when mom's company bought the division of a company dad works at and she couldn't talk about work.

"Ben is a supervisor and has hired Doug as his assistant. Ben hits on Doug, but Doug rebuffs his advances, saying he is already in a relationship. Doug finally yields to Doug's advances in an effort to keep his job."

Sarah Saturn:"Ben is a supervisor and has hired Doug as his assistant. Ben hits on Doug, but Doug rebuffs his advances, saying he is already in a relationship. Doug finally yields to Doug's advances in an effort to keep his job."

Sarah Saturn:"Ben is a supervisor and has hired Doug as his assistant. Ben hits on Doug, but Doug rebuffs his advances, saying he is already in a relationship. Doug finally yields to Doug's advances in an effort to keep his job."

Anymore, just go to work, keep your head down at your desk/cubicle, do not talk to anyone unless talked to, do not look at anyone.

There are obvious forms of behavior (touching, asking someone out repeatedly, saying something like "hey nice ass") but seriously the PC culture has ruined what joking and enjoying a workday could be because some sissy might be easily offended.

4\28 (on purpose). What I found unsurprising is that the ones that I got right were the ones that had the lowest rate of getting correct by the other (registered) responders. I found it unsurprising only because there are some ambiguous situations where it's very fuzzy on what may or may not constitute sexual harassment even if you have no intention of doing so. To me it's pretty simple. Don't dip your pen in the company ink, don't make crude jokes and try to stay professional, and most importantly keep your hands to yourself.

Filner is apparently trying to fight potential dismissal with cause because he wasn't told to take the harassment training within the first six months? Is he that much of a knuckle-dragger that he need harassment training to be told groping is inappropriate? If that's the case, I'll reiterate what I said yesterday - the man needs to be put in long-term supervised care. This is someone with a mental disorder, and severe self-control issues.

Yep. They should have asked "how would you explain 'quid pro quo harassment'". Quid pro quo means either of the other two answers (depending on who's translating.) That one, along with several others, is profoundly mis-worded. "Can she express a claim?" Yes. Yes she can. Will she? Should she? Will it stick? None of that is what 'you' asked.

"You got 16 out of 28 questions correct for a grade of 57%, which is better than 21 of the 55 U-T San Diego subscribers who have tried the quiz. So far, no one has gotten a perfect score on this quiz.Below, see your answers to each question and how they compared to U-T San Diego subscribers that were logged in."

Okay for not really thinking about it.Not a boss. I'm a WTD kinda guy. Keep my thoughts to myself. Keep my hands at home. Don't be an ass. Don't want to date anyone but my wife. Not really into touching the people I work with. Too grumpy to have an affair. Not attractive to others unless bitterness is attractive. I'm fine with all of that. Should work on that score though, could be important to someone else.

I had to stop after I answered the quid pro quo question correctly, and got it wrong. Apparently, they wanted the "pervert definition" instead of the real one.

I disagreed with the first one too. I think the quiz writer is confusing a company policy of no dating for actual legal harassment. It only rises to the level of harassment when one party doesn't welcome the contact. Intent isn't overly important, it's how it's perceived that matters.

UNC_Samurai:Filner is apparently trying to fight potential dismissal with cause because he wasn't told to take the harassment training within the first six months? Is he that much of a knuckle-dragger that he need harassment training to be told groping is inappropriate? If that's the case, I'll reiterate what I said yesterday - the man needs to be put in long-term supervised care. This is someone with a mental disorder, and severe self-control issues.

The oddest part? Mr. Manchester and the chief executive, John T. Lynch, who also owns part of the paper, are completely open about their motives.

"We make no apologies," Mr. Lynch said by telephone on Friday. "We are doing what a newspaper ought to do, which is to take positions. We are very consistent - pro-conservative, pro-business, pro-military - and we are trying to make a newspaper that gets people excited about this city and its future."

Bonanza Jellybean:If it even enters your mind that one of your coworkers is attractive, you should instantly be buried in an iron coffin with spikes on the inside.

Or you know, you could take the quiz and find that asking a co-worker on a date is perfectly legal(as long as you aren't their manager). It's doing it over and over after they've made their feelings clear that is illegal.